1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Beyond corpus data — complementary and alternative methods in cognitive linguistics
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This thematic section focuses on the methodology of cognitive linguistics. It explores ways of answering three types of research questions: those concerning the mental representations of linguistic categories, the linguistic representation of cognitive phenomena, and the connections between conceptual and linguistic structures. Methodologically, the thematic section focuses on corpora and going beyond their use in cognitive linguistic research. Two of the papers included in this section extend the corpus data to offer more compelling evidence for various empirical inquiries, whereas the third one uses video clips to elicit data given that corpus data is not available. The languages under investigation are Arabic, English, Finnish, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
2025-10-28
2025-11-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthonissen, L.
    (2020) Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0023 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
    (2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, (), –. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I.
    (1994) Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1998) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
    (2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What Corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2016) What corpus-based cognitive linguistics can and cannot expect from neurolinguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0062
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0062 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brugman, C.
    (1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley 1988).
  8. Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
    (2006 [1988]) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.109 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. L.
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2008) The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J.
    (2006) Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Divjak, D.
    (2017) The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/cogs.12335
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12335 [Google Scholar]
  14. Divjak, D., Dąbrowska, E., & Arppe, A.
    (2016) Machine meets man: Evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0101
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0101 [Google Scholar]
  15. Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T.
    (2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Etelämäki, M., & Visapää, L.
    (2014) Why blend conversation analysis with cognitive grammar?Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.03ete [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Flach, S.
    (2020) Schemas and the frequency/acceptability mismatch: Corpus distribution predicts sentence judgments. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑2040
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-2040 [Google Scholar]
  19. Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. A.
    (2014) Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
    (Eds.) (2010) Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, S. T.
    (2010) Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: A love-hate relationship? Not necessarily. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.15.3.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.3.02gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. T., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
    (2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  25. Grieve, J.
    (2021) Observation, experimentation, and replication in linguistics. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0094
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0094 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Itkonen, E.
    (1981) The concept of linguistic intuition. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), A Festschrift for native speaker (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Itkonen, E., & Pajunen, A.
    (2010) Empiirisen kielitieteen metodologia [The methodology of empirical linguistics]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Janda, L. A.
    (2013) Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. InL. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics — the quantitative turn: An essential reader (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Klavan, J.
    (2012) Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Doctoral dissertation. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
  31. Klavan, J., & Veismann, A.
    (2017) Are corpus-based predictions mirrored in the preferential choices and ratings of native speakers? Predicting the alternation between the Estonian adessive case and the adposition peal ‘on’. ESUKA — JEFUL, (), –. 10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.03
     https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2017.8.2.03 [Google Scholar]
  32. Konstenius, R. A.
    (2014) Empiria, eksperimentti ja etiikka: Kielitieteen metateoriaa [Empirical evidence, experiment and ethics: On the metatheory of linguistics] (Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki 2014).
  33. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (1991) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2003 [1980]) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Luodonpää-Manni, M., Hamunen, M., & Konstenius, R.
    (2020) Tutkimuksen käytäntö [Research in practice]. InM. Luodonpää-Manni, M. Hamunen, R. Konstenius, M. Miestamo, U. Nikanne, & K. Sinnemäki (Eds.), Kielentutkimuksen menetelmiä I–IV [Methods in linguistics I–IV] (pp.–). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Luodonpää-Manni, M., & Ojutkangas, K.
    (2020) Laadullinen aineistopohjainen kielentutkimus [Qualitative corpus-based linguistics]. InM. Luodonpää-Manni, M. Hamunen, R. Konstenius, M. Miestamo, U. Nikanne, & K. Sinnemäki (Eds.), Kielentutkimuksen menetelmiä I–IV [Methods in linguistics I–IV] (pp.–). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Marr, D.
    (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: Freeman.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McConnell, K., & Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
    (2022) Effects of task and corpus-derived association scores on the online processing of collocations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0030
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0030 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mehl, S.
    (2021) What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2017‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0039 [Google Scholar]
  43. Newman, J., & Sorenson Duncan, T.
    (2019) The subject of ROAR in the mind and in the corpus: What divergent results can teach us. Linguistica Atlantica, (). https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/la/article/view/28827
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pajunen, A., & Itkonen, E.
    (2019) Intuition and beyond: A hierarchy of descriptive methods. InA. Mäkilähde, V. Leppänen & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity in language and linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.209.08paj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.08paj [Google Scholar]
  45. Proos, M.
    (2019) Polysemy of the Estonian verb nägema ‘to see’. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.12pro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.12pro [Google Scholar]
  46. Rastelli, S.
    (2020) Contingency learning and perfective morpheme productivity in L2 Italian: A study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2019‑0071
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0071 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rooth, M. E.
    (1985) Association with focus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts 1985).
  48. Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
    (1995) Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind — the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Schönefeld, D.
    (2011) Introduction: On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research. InD. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.33.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33.03sch [Google Scholar]
  53. Senft, G.
    (2003) Ethnographic methods. InG. Rickheit, T. Herrmann & W. Deutsch (Eds.), Psycholinguistics: An international handbook (pp.–). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110114249.2.106
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110114249.2.106 [Google Scholar]
  54. Silvennoinen, O. O.
    (2019) Contrastive negation: Constructional variation within and across languages (Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki 2019) urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-5527-6
  55. (2023) Is construction grammar cognitive?Constructions, (). 10.24338/cons‑544
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-544 [Google Scholar]
  56. Spalek, K., & Zeldes, A.
    (2017) Converging evidence for the relevance of alternative sets: Data from NPs with focus sensitive particles in German. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2015.12
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.12 [Google Scholar]
  57. Steen, G. J.
    (2011) Issues in collecting converging evidence: Is metaphor always a matter of thought?InD. Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.33.04ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33.04ste [Google Scholar]
  58. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2020) Corpus linguistics: A guide to the methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S.
    (2016) The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.–). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110341423‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110341423-006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Street, J. A., & Dąbrowska, E.
    (2010) More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers?Lingua, (), –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  61. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Teubert, W.
    (2005) My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.10.1.01teu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.01teu [Google Scholar]
  63. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226702.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2007) Construal and perspectivization. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Winter, B.
    (2019) Sensory linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.20 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wu, S.
    (2021) A corpus-based study of the Chinese synonymous approximatives shangxia, qianhou and zuoyou. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0049
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0049 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
Loading
Beyond corpus data — complementary and alternative methods in cognitive linguistics
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00236.gra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error